[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] Understanding 'Geomsu Wanbak' Through Q&A... Prosecution Unable to Hear Statements

Prosecutors and Police Delay Case Processing... Cross-Check Failure Prolongs Court Decisions
‘Serious Crime Investigation Agency’ May Take Years to Decades... Concerns Over ‘Complete Corruption’

Democratic Party of Korea lawmakers Park Chan-dae and Kim Yong-min submitted amendments to the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act to the National Assembly Secretariat on the morning of the 15th. Photo by the National Assembly Press Photographers Group [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Democratic Party of Korea has proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and the Prosecutors' Office Act, known as the so-called ‘Geomsu Wanbak (Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Authority)’ bills. The core of the Geomsu Wanbak bills is the complete elimination of the prosecution's authority to initiate investigations as stipulated in the current Criminal Procedure Act. Prosecutors will only be able to investigate crimes committed by the police and prosecutors of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (Gongu-cheo).

If the Geomsu Wanbak bills pass, a revolutionary change in the current criminal justice system is inevitable, such as prosecutors being unable to conduct supplementary investigations even if they have doubts about case records sent by the police. Opinions on the Geomsu Wanbak bills are divided even among legal professionals, making it difficult for the general public to understand the case handling process. If the Geomsu Wanbak bills pass, we will explore in a Q&A format how the overall investigation process will change and what problems may arise.

Q: If prosecutors cannot conduct investigations, will the police handle all investigations?

A: That is correct. Originally, the primary investigative authority rested with the police except for six major crimes (corruption, public officials, elections, economy, defense projects, and large-scale disasters). However, if the Geomsu Wanbak bills pass, prosecutors will only be able to investigate crimes committed by Gongu-cheo and police officers, and will not be able to investigate any other crimes.

Q: If prosecutors have doubts about case records sent by the police, can they conduct supplementary investigations?

A: It is impossible. For prosecutors to indict a crime, they must verify whether the suspect committed the crime and whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the crime. All activities such as calling the suspect or complainant or summoning related parties to the prosecutor's office to hear statements are part of the investigation. Therefore, prosecutors can only request supplementary investigations from the police but cannot conduct any investigations themselves.

Q: What happens if a case is sent back to the police after prosecutors request supplementary investigations?

A: There is a high possibility of investigation delays. Since there is no set deadline for additional or supplementary investigations, the police can investigate the case without any time constraints. Even if the police conduct supplementary or additional investigations and resend the case, if the prosecutor judges that evidence is still insufficient, the case must be sent back to the police again. Ultimately, complex cases may bounce back and forth between the prosecution and the police, potentially remaining unresolved for months or years.

Q: Is supplementary investigation by prosecutors really necessary? Can't the police conduct supplementary investigations themselves?

A: The police's investigative capabilities have reached a considerable level and may not differ significantly from those of prosecutors. However, cross-checking is necessary. Both prosecutors and police officers are human and can make mistakes or wrong decisions. Originally, prosecutors could review cases from a different perspective than the police and draw conclusions after investigations. But if prosecutors lose their investigative authority, incorrect decisions cannot be corrected.

Q: There is criticism that prosecutors have exercised unchecked power by holding both investigative and prosecutorial authority. Isn't separating investigation and prosecution the ideal criminal justice model?

A: Investigation is a preliminary procedure for prosecution and trial. Investigation, prosecution, and public prosecution are organically connected and cannot be separated. If a prosecutor who did not participate in the investigation cannot verify facts or gather evidence, it is difficult to make an appropriate judgment on whether to prosecute.

Q: Wouldn't it be sufficient to first remove prosecutors' investigative authority and then compensate by strengthening police investigative capabilities or establishing separate agencies like the Serious Crime Investigation Office or Special Investigation Office?

A: There will be gaps in responding to serious crimes. Agencies like the Serious Crime Investigation Office may be established, but no one can guarantee how long it will take. Who and how will respond to corruption and crimes occurring during the potentially several years to decades-long period? The High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office has been established for over a year but has managed to prosecute only one case.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.